Does DC's no-fault auto insurance law apply to cars owned by foreign diplomats, the DC government, WMATA, or the federal government?
Plain-English summary
DC enacted compulsory no-fault auto insurance in 1982. Every motor vehicle registered in DC has to carry the prescribed insurance or a self-insurance certificate. The DC Department of Transportation, which then handled registration, asked Corporation Counsel Judith Rogers a real-world question: does the law actually apply to vehicles owned by diplomats, the DC government itself, WMATA, and the federal government? Each of those owners has special legal status that might exempt them.
The opinion's answer is yes, all four classes have to comply, but the practical compliance requirement varies. The Director of Transportation can require a certificate of insurance before registering any vehicle. For DC government vehicles and diplomatic vehicles, the Director can demand normal proof of insurance. For WMATA and federal government vehicles, the Director cannot demand more than a statement that the entity is self-insured for claims under its own applicable laws.
The reasoning runs through three different legal channels. Diplomats are required by federal law (Section 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act and 22 C.F.R. §§ 151.3-151.4) to carry liability insurance meeting the requirements of the jurisdiction where their vehicles are garaged, which means full DC no-fault compliance. DC government vehicles have no special exemption in the no-fault statute, and the Council clearly has authority to define the District's own liability. WMATA is governed by the WMATA Compact, which under Article 80 makes WMATA liable for torts of its agents in proprietary functions "in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory," which under federal precedent (Liberty Mutual v. United States) extends to no-fault statutes. The United States is similarly subject under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which makes the U.S. liable in the same manner as a private individual under like circumstances. But Supremacy Clause limits and specific federal-law conflicts mean DC cannot enforce the financial-contribution or 30-day-payment rules against the federal government, and the WMATA Compact cannot be unilaterally amended by DC.
What this means for you
If you work in DC vehicle registration administration
Two operating rules from this opinion. First, do not register a vehicle in DC without an insurance certificate or a valid self-insurance attestation, regardless of who owns it. The taxicab exception in § 12(e) is the only statutory exception. Second, if the registrant is WMATA or the federal government, do not push for documentation beyond a self-insurance statement under its own applicable laws. Trying to apply DC's contribution requirements to the federal fleet creates Supremacy Clause and Self-Government Act problems.
If you are a federal employee who drives a federal-government vehicle in DC
The vehicle has to be registered in DC if it is regularly based or housed here (41 C.F.R. Subpart 101-38.2). Your employing agency will provide the self-insurance statement. You personally do not need to carry private DC no-fault insurance for the government vehicle, because the federal government covers liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act and provides workers' compensation under the Federal Employees Compensation Act for on-duty injuries.
If you have an accident in a government vehicle, your remedy as a federal employee injured on duty is FECA, not DC no-fault benefits, and Demetriadis v. U.S. Postal Service says state no-fault laws cannot require additional benefits beyond what federal law provides. If a third-party private driver is injured by a federal vehicle, the FTCA provides the remedy, applying DC no-fault principles by reference.
If you are a foreign diplomat or mission staff member
Federal regulations (22 C.F.R. §§ 151.3-151.4) require you to carry liability insurance meeting DC's requirements, including no-fault coverage. The Diplomatic Relations Act made compliance a federal obligation. You cannot rely on diplomatic immunity to skip DC no-fault. The State Department enforces this through its Office of Foreign Missions; failure to carry insurance can lead to license-plate cancellation.
If you are a WMATA employee or a private driver hit by a WMATA vehicle
WMATA carries liability for the torts of its agents under Article 80 of the Compact, and DC's no-fault Act applies. As a practical matter, WMATA processes claims internally as a self-insurer, but the substantive rules are DC no-fault. If you are injured by a WMATA vehicle, your no-fault PIP claim is handled through WMATA's claims department applying DC no-fault statutes.
If you are a DC fleet manager
DC government vehicles are subject to DC no-fault. Your agency carries the insurance or self-insures. The Council expressly waived sovereign immunity for District tort liability through the DC Unjust Imprisonment Act of 1980 and the no-fault Act's general application; there is no carve-out for DC-owned vehicles.
If you are an insurance defense attorney or PIP claims handler
Three doctrinal hooks worth knowing. First, the WMATA Compact's Article 80 carries DC tort law into WMATA cases, including no-fault. Second, FTCA's "private person under like circumstances" language imports state no-fault into federal-vehicle cases (Liberty Mutual v. United States; Hohman v. United States). Third, DC cannot enforce financial-contribution requirements or 30-day-payment rules against federal entities or WMATA, but the substantive PIP coverage applies.
Common questions
Q: Can a foreign diplomat plead immunity to avoid paying DC no-fault?
A: No. The Diplomatic Relations Act and 22 C.F.R. §§ 151.3-151.4 require diplomats to carry insurance meeting DC's requirements, which include no-fault. Diplomatic immunity for civil suits is a separate question, but the insurance-carrying obligation is enforced by the State Department.
Q: Why can DC require contribution payments from private self-insurers but not from the federal government?
A: Two reasons. The federal vehicle registration statute (50 Stat. 680, § 4) requires DC to register federal vehicles "without charge," which the Corporation Counsel reads to bar any direct or indirect federal payment. And § 602(a) of the DC Self-Government Act (D.C. Code § 1-233) denies the Council authority to amend any Act of Congress concerning the property of the United States.
Q: What about the WMATA Compact, can DC just amend that to make WMATA pay?
A: No. Hellmuth v. WMATA held the Compact governs the relations of the parties and is "superior to both prior and subsequent law." DC cannot unilaterally amend it. Article 78 also exempts WMATA from DC taxes and assessments.
Q: Is this opinion still good law in 2026?
A: The substantive framework still controls, though the implementing agency has changed (DDOT to DMV) and the no-fault Act has been amended. Diplomats still need DC-compliant insurance under federal regulations. Federal vehicles and WMATA still self-insure with no DC contribution. The Compact has not been materially amended in ways that would change the WMATA analysis.
Q: What if a foreign mission stops paying its insurance?
A: The State Department can revoke driver's licenses and license plates of mission staff under the Diplomatic Relations Act. As a practical matter, missions face significant pressure to maintain coverage.
Q: Are DC police cars subject to no-fault?
A: They are owned by the DC government, which has no statutory exception. The DC government can self-insure or buy commercial coverage. The substantive PIP rules apply.
Background and statutory framework
DC enacted the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act in 1982 (D.C. Law 4-155). The Act required every owner of a motor vehicle registered in DC to maintain compulsory no-fault insurance (§ 4(a)). It defined "owner" and "person" to include any natural person, firm, association, government agency, or instrumentality (§§ 3(21), 3(23)). The only express exception was for taxicabs (§ 12(e)). Sections 9(c)(3) and 9(e) required self-insurers to contribute to the assigned claims plan and the administration fund; § 11(c)(1) required claim payments within 30 days; § 14(c)(7) authorized the Mayor to issue self-insurance certificates.
The DOT Director's question was how to apply this framework to four classes of unusual owners.
Diplomats. Section 6 of the federal Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-393, 92 Stat. 809; 22 U.S.C. § 254e) directs each foreign mission, members, and their families to comply with regulations establishing liability-insurance requirements. The implementing regulations (22 C.F.R. §§ 151.3-151.4) require missions and persons to maintain insurance meeting the legal requirements of the jurisdiction where the vehicle is principally garaged, including compulsory insurance, uninsured motorist coverage, and first-party no-fault coverage. So the DC no-fault requirements apply to diplomatic vehicles via federal regulation.
District of Columbia. The Council has authority to define the District's own tort liability (cf. DC Unjust Imprisonment Act of 1980). Without any expressed statutory exception, the no-fault Act applies to DC-owned vehicles like any other.
WMATA. Vehicles are governed by the WMATA Compact (D.C. Code § 1-2431). Hellmuth v. WMATA, 414 F. Supp. 408 (D. Md. 1976), held the Compact governs the parties' relations and is superior to both prior and subsequent law; one party may not impose burdens absent the concurrence of the other signatories. Article 77 exempts WMATA transit service from signatory laws except those relating to safety, inspection, and testing. But Article 80 makes WMATA liable for the torts of its agents in proprietary functions "in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory." Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 328 (E.D.N.Y. 1980), held parallel FTCA language applies state no-fault statutes to U.S. liability. Article 80 therefore subjects WMATA to DC no-fault.
United States. The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), makes the United States liable to a claimant "in accordance with the law of the place," and 28 U.S.C. § 2674 makes the U.S. liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." That imports DC no-fault into FTCA suits. Hohman v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Pa. 1979), and Liberty Mutual support the result.
But on the financial-contribution and 30-day-payment requirements, three obstacles defeat DC enforcement against the federal government:
- The DC vehicle-registration statute (50 Stat. 680, ch. 690, Title IV, § 2) requires DC to register federal vehicles "without charge," precluding direct or indirect payment from the federal government (citing In re Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 591 (1938)).
- Section 602(a) of the DC Self-Government Act (D.C. Code § 1-233) denies the Council authority to amend any Act of Congress concerning U.S. property.
- The Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq.) provides an exclusive remedy for federal employees injured in on-duty auto accidents, and the Supremacy Clause bars DC from requiring the U.S. to pay different or additional benefits (Demetriadis v. United States Postal Service, 465 F. Supp. 597 (E.D.N.Y. 1979)). Federal accounting rules also do not permit the 30-day claim payment.
The opinion's compromise: the DOT Director can require a self-insurance statement from WMATA and the U.S. but cannot demand more.
Citations and references
Statutes and regulations:
- D.C. Law 4-155 (Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982)
- 50 Stat. 680, ch. 690, Title IV, § 2 (1937), D.C. Code § 40-102 (vehicle registration)
- D.C. Code §§ 40-401 et seq. (Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act)
- Diplomatic Relations Act, Pub. L. 95-393, 22 U.S.C. § 254e
- 22 C.F.R. §§ 151.3, 151.4 (1982)
- WMATA Compact, D.C. Code § 1-2431 (Articles 77, 78, 80)
- Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674
- Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq.
- 41 C.F.R. Subpart 101-38.2 (1981)
- DC Self-Government Act § 602(a), D.C. Code § 1-233
Cases:
- Hellmuth v. WMATA, 414 F. Supp. 408 (D. Md. 1976), Compact superior to prior and subsequent law
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 328 (E.D.N.Y. 1980), FTCA imports state no-fault
- Hohman v. United States, 470 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Pa. 1979), same analysis under Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
- Demetriadis v. United States Postal Service, 465 F. Supp. 597 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), Supremacy Clause bars state no-fault from requiring different federal benefits
- In re Opinion of the Justices, 300 Mass. 591, 14 N.E.2d 392 (1938), "without charge" language precludes indirect federal payment
License
This opinion is published by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Per the DC.gov terms of use, content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which permits commercial use, redistribution, and modification with attribution.
Source
- Original PDF: https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/Opinion-July-2014-No-Fault-Vehicle-Insurance.pdf
Original opinion text
••
~nu~r1tmr1tt nf 14~ Btstrid nf Qtnlumhitt
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
DISTRICT BUILDING
WASHINGTON. D.
C.
20004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
LCD:L&O:TB:pm
(82-720)
February 3, 1983
OPINION OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
SUBJECI': Application of the Compulsory/
No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance
Act to Vehicles' owned by Diplomats,
the District of Columbia, WMATA,
and the United States •
•
Thomas M. Downs, Director
Department of Transportation
District of Columbia Government
415 12th Street, Northwest
Washington, D. C.
Dear f.rr. J):)wns :
This is in reply to your request dated November 2, 1982, for an
op1n10n of this Office as to whether the Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle
Insurance Act of 1982, D.C. Law 4-155, effective September 18, 1982, requires
that the prescribed form of insurance or a certificate of self-insurance be
obtain.~d for vehicles CMned by diplomats, by the District of Columbia, by the
~vashin:Jton f>1etropolitan Area Transit Authority (Wt1ATA), and by the United
States.
•
In my opinion, the Director of the Depar~~ent of Transportation may
require a certificate of insurance as a prerequisite to registering each of
these classes of vehicles. HCMever, the Director should not require more of
WMATA or t~e United States than the statement that they are self-insured for
the payment of clai~s made under all applicable laws •
-2-
•
.
Section 4(a) of D.C. Law 4-155 requires each owner of a rotor vechicle
required to be registered in the District 1/ to maintain cort\i?ulsory no-fault
insurance as prescribed by the act. Section l4(c)(7) authorizes the Mayor
to issue certificates of self-insurance, which provide for payment of
benefits in accordance with the act. 2/ Sections 91c)I3) and 91e) require
self-insurers to join insurance writers in contributin9 to meeting the cost
of the assigned claims plan and. the administration fund-established by the
act, in accordance with rules laid down by the Superintendent of Insurance.
Section 4{d)(1) requires that every person applying to register a motor
vehicle in the District certify to the Director of the Department of
Transportation that the insurance required by the act is in effect with
respect to that rrntor vehicle. Sections 3{2l) and 3t23} define "owner" and
"person" to include any natural person, firm, association, gov~rnlT\ent agency,
or instrunentali ty.
Under the statute as enacted, the Director of the Department of
Transportation would appear to have the authority to require an appropriate
c~ulsory/no-fault insurance certificate as a prerequisite to registering
cars oNned by diplomats, by the District of Columbia, by WMATA and by the
United States. The act includes only one exception, for taxicabs, sec.
l21e), and there is no indication in the legislative history that the Council
intended any other exception. See Proceedings of the Council of the District
of Columbia, Council Period 4, 2d session, (cited hereafter as Proceedings)
May 11, 1982, pp. 128-130: June 22, 1982, pp. 133, 200-202,229.
•
J
!!
50 Stat. GSO, ch. 690, Title IV, sec. 2, August 17, 1937, as amended,
D.C. cOde, sec. 40-102 t 1981), provides that no rcotor vehicle may be
operated on the streets of the District (with limited exceptions for
non-residents and others which are not relevant here) unless the owner
registers the vehicle with the District Government;'the District Government must provide certificates of registration and identification tags
without charge for motor vehicles owned for official use by any duly
accredited representative of a foreign govern1nent or ONned by the
District or by the United States.
2/
Nowhere does the act give legal effect to the Mayor's issuance or
refusal to issue a certificate of self-insurance. Hrywever, a person
who has been involved in a motor vehicle accident in the District may
use such a certificate in lieu of the deposit of security otherwise
required by th~ Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, G8 Stat. 120
t1954), D.C. Code, secs. 40-401 et seq. (1981). The United States and
the District of Columbia are exeffiJ?ted frOll this requirement to deposit
security •. D.C. Code, sec. 40-4l8(8) •
-3-
Section 6 of the Diplomatic Relations Act, Pub. L. 95-393, 92 Stat.
~809 (1978), 22 U.S.C. sec. 254e, directs each foreign mission, members of
the mission and their families to comply with regulations establishing
liability insurance requirements, to be promulgated under the Act. Those
regulations require missions and persons to maintain liability insurance
with respect to their motor vehicles, which insurance shall meet the
legal requirements of the jurisdiction where the vehicle is principally
;Jara;Jed, including cornpulsory insurance, uninsured rcotorist coverage,
and first party no-fault coverage. 22 C.F.R. sec. 151.3 and 151.4 (1982).
The Council clearly has the authority to define the liability of
the government of the District of Columbia. See,~, District of
Columbia Unjust Imprisonment Act of 1980, D.C. Law 3-143, effective
March 5, 1981, D.C. Code, secs. 1-941 et seq. In the absence of any
expressed exception for District-owned-Vehicles the no-fault scheme
enacted by the Council would be applicable to District-owned vehicles
as well as to privately-owned vehicles.
Vehicles owned by WMATA are governed in the first instance by
the washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact, D.C. Code,
sec. 1-2431. "[Tlhe compact governs the relations of the parties with
respect to the subject matter of the agreement and is superior to both
prior and subsequent law • • • • [O'ne party may not impose burdens upon
the cort\f>act absent the concurrence of the other signatories." Hellmuth
v. WMATA, 414 F.Supp. 408 (D.Md. 1976). Article 77 of the compact exempts
WMATA transit service from all. laws of the signatories except those relating
to safety, inspection and testing. See,~, Gay Activists Alliance v.
WMATA, Civil No. 78-2217, D.D.C., July 5, 1979; 4 Op.C.C. 203 (1979).
However, Art. 80 provides that WMATA shall be liable for its contracts and
the torts of its agents committed in the conduct of any proprietary function
"in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory." It has been held
that parallel language in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346
(b), applies New York's No-Fault Insurance Act to claims against the United
States. Liberty Mutual Insurance 00. v. United States. 490 F. Supp. 328
tE.D. N.Y. 1980). Claims by the United States under the Federal Medical
Care Recovery Act, 76 Stat. 593 {1962), 42 U.S.C. secs. 2651 et. seq.,
have similarly been held to be subject to Pennsylvania's no-fault motor
vehicle insurance act, even in the absence of such language. Hohman v.
United States, 470 F.Supp. 769 tE.D. Pa. 1979). See generi?lly, "Note:
The Federal Medical Care Recovery Act in No-Fault Automobile Insurance
Jurisdictions" 21 B.C.L. Rev. 623 t1980). The reasoning of these precedents would appear to cort\f>el the conclusion that Art. 80 of the WMATA
compact subjects WMATA to the District's Compulsory/No-Fault Insurance Act.
The same precedents similarly would appear to compel the conclusion that
the United States is subject to the D.C. Compulsory/No-Fault Insurance Act. }/
~
41 C.F.R Subpart 101-38.2 {198l) follows ~~e D.C. Code in requiring
that all Federal government rotor vehicles "regularly based or housed
in the District" be registered (agencies must subnit documentation
attesting ownership) and inspected by the District annually.
•
-4This conclusion is supported by the language of the Federal Tort Claims ~ct,
28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(b) supra, which provides that u.s. District Courts shall
hear claims against the united States "if a private person would be liable
to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place;\' another section of
the A.ct provides that the United States shall be liable "in the same manner
and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances."
28 U.S.C. sec. 2674.
Nothwithstanding the applicability to diplo~ts, the District, WMATA
and the United States of the C~~ulsory/No-Fault Insurance Act, there are
statutory restrictions on what the Director of the Department of Transportation
may require certain owners to certify regarding the existence of insurance
before registering their vehicles under section 4(d). There appear to be no
such restrictions on the Director's authority over vehicles owned by the
District or by diplomats. Indeed, 22 C.F.R. sections 151.3 and 151.4 affirmatively sanction ~osing the same insurance requirements on diplomatic
owners of vehicles as on private owners. However, the Director may encounter
substantial legal difficulties if he attempts to require any certification
from WMATA or the United states beyond the sbnple statement that they are
self insurers.
• First, it appears to have been the intent of the Council that
cOmpliance with the self-insurance requirements by the federal government
and by \'l'1ATA would be simple and pro forma. When the Council specifically
considered \~A and government vehicles, no-fault features had not yet
been added to the bill, which had been reported out of cormnittee as a
sL~le compulsory insurance bill: the assumption of Councilmembers Rolark
and Wilson in debate on the bill was that WMATA and the government could
continue to do what they were already doing. Proceedings, May 11, 1982,
pp. 128-130. Remarks made by Councilmember Wilson after no-fault provisions
were added to the bill are consistent with this assumption. Proceedings,
June 22, 1982, p. 133. But see remarks of Councilmember Moore, ibid.;
pp. 184-188,229.
Second, ~~e District has no legal authority to enforce against
the United States the financial contribution requirements which
secs. 9(c)(3) and 9(e) of the act place on self-insurers. Cf. Proceedings,
June 22, 1982, pp. 184-188. The District may not unilaterally amend the
WMATA Compact. Hellmuth v. WMATA, supra.
Article 78 of the Compact
exempts ~~A.TA from all federal, state, District of Columbia, municipal and
local taxes anQ assessments including, without limitation, all motor vehicle
license fees. Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government
and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 813, D.C. Code,
sec. 1-233., denies the Council authority to impose any tax on the property
of the United States or to amend any Act of Congress which concerns the
property of the United States. If the Director were to enforce contribution
requirements against the united States, such an action could be construed
as effectively amending 50 Stat. 680, ch. 690, Title IV, sec. 2, supra, D.C.
Code, sec. 40-102, requiring the District to'register vehicles ONned by the
~~~TA or
•
-5-
".
united states IIwithout charge. II Such language precludes payment frOl"'ll the
United States in any way directly or indirectly. See In re Opinion of the
Justices, 300 Mass. 591, 14 N.E. 2d 392 (1938).
Third, the District may not enforce against the United States
the requirement of sec. 14(c)(7) that self-insurance provide for the
payment of benefits to the extent required by ~~e act. For example,
the Federal Enployees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. secs. 8101 et. seq.,
provides an exclusive remedy for federal e:nployees injured by autortCbile
accidents within the scope of their employment;'under the Supremacy
Clause, u.S. Constitution Art. VI. cl.2, a State no-fault law may not
require the united States to pay different or additional benefits.
Demetriadis v. United States Postal Service, 465 F.Supp. 597 (E.D. N.Y
1979). The Tort Claims Section, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, also reports that present federal government accounting
procedures do not permit it to make continuing payments of claims
wiL~in 30 days of loss, as required by sec. ll(c)(l).
In conclusion, the Director of the Department of Transportation
may require a certificate of insurance as a prerequisite to registering
cars CMned by diplomats, by the District of Columbia, by W'1ATA, and by
the United States. However, the Director should not require more of
WMATA or the United States than the statement that they are self-insured
for the payment of claims made under all applicable laws.
•
•
,Sincerely,
\
.")
_.. ~l~t,h!" C--6 f--~
/Judi~ W. Rogers
Corporation Counsel
\